Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR 08-28-2018 6A
City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 28, 2018 Agenda Item: 6.A 1 of 13 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Civil Engineering Subject: Public Hearing on Appeals to Proposed Wireless Small Cell Facilities Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing, receive public comment, deny the three public appeals against the installation of two small cell sites on City streetlight poles, and uphold the Public Works Department’s approval of the installations by taking the following actions: 1. Approve Wireless Application 17WIR-0083 by adopting the attached Statement of Official Actions, and 2. Approve Wireless Application 17WIR-0131 by adopting the attached Statement of Official Actions. Executive Summary In November 2017, the City entered into a Master Small Cell License Agreement (MLA) with Mobilitie, a utility acting on behalf of wireless service provider Sprint, to install small cell sites on City-owned streetlight and traffic signal poles. The Public Works Department reviewed two applications from Mobilitie to install small cell sites pursuant to the MLA. The proposed installations were determined to meet federal, state, and local law, and were therefore approved. Three appeals have been received for the two sites. The roll-out of a national wireless infrastructure is not without trade-offs or public concerns. However, Federal law has significantly restricted the authority of local authorities to regulate the placement of cellular equipment by carriers. Staff recommends that Council deny the appeals and uphold the Public Works Department’s approval, which is consistent with Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) which states the City may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental 2 of 13 effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” The approval and the associated recommendation to deny these appeals are also consistent with Santa Monica Municipal Code provisions, which were adopted consistent with these federal regulations. Background Under federal law, local governments have the authority to make “decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification” of wireless communications facilities provided that local regulations do not (i) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (ii) prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). On July 26, 2016, the City Council adopted the Public Right-of-Way Wireless Communications Ordinance setting forth the deployment of wireless communications facilities within the public right-of-way (SMMC Chapter 7.70 - Attachment A). Consistent with Federal law, SMMC Section 7.70.090 provides that “As Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” SMMC Section 7.70.080 further requires the City to make the following findings when approving a Wireless Communications Facility: (a) The proposed facility complies with all of the applicable laws. (b) The proposed facility will not interfere with the use of the public right-of-way (PROW). (c) The proposed facility’s impacts have been mitigated through the use of camouflage and concealment elements. (d) The proposed facility is in compliance with all Federal electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) emissions standards. 3 of 13 Small cell sites are a relatively new wireless technology that enable wireless carriers to provide more reliable cellular service and faster data transmission rates. In contrast with older technologies such as macro cell sites, small cell sites are physically smaller, use less power, and are typically installed on existing streetlight, traffic signal, or utility poles. They have a notably shorter range than traditional cell towers and therefore must be installed within closer proximity to each other. As public utilities, wireless carriers have a number of options to install small cell sites in the public right-of-way. These options include: 1. Installation of a new pole or structure whose sole purpose is to serve as a small cell site; 2. Attachment of a small cell site to an existing utility or streetlight pole owned by a non-City entity, such as those owned by Southern California Edison; 3. Attachment of a small cell site to fiber optic telecommunications wires owned by a non-City entity (known as “strand mount” installations); and 4. Attachment of a small cell site to a streetlight or traffic signal pole owned and maintained by the City. Attaching small cell sites on existing infrastructure is preferred to avoid the installation of additional poles in the public right-of-way. Staff anticipates as many as 600 small cell sites to be installed throughout the City over the next two to three years. Discussion Mobilitie, a privately-held telecommunication infrastructure company acting on behalf of cellular service provider Sprint, executed a Master Small Cell License Agreement (MLA) with the City on November 28, 2017 to obtain site permits to install wireless small cell facilities on City streetlight and traffic signal poles (Attachment B). The MLA authorizes the installation of small cell sites on City poles and streetlights through the issuance of 10-year site permits for each individual installation. Applications for new site permits undergo a review process by the Public Works Department, which includes review of construction documents that show how new wireless communications facilities would be 4 of 13 installed, photo simulations that show what the built environment would look like before and after the installation, and data that indicates that radio frequency emissions fall within federal safety requirements under 47 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.1307. Applicants must show the proposed facilities: (i) comply with all of the applicable laws; (ii) not interfere with the use of the public right-of-way; (iii) mitigate impacts through the use of camouflage and concealment elements; and (iv) comply with all federal electromagnetic field emissions standards. Mobilitie submitted two site permit applications to install small cell sites on City-owned streetlight poles: 17WIR-0083: 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue) (Attachment C) 17WIR-0131: 2255-2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation) (Attachment D) After reviewing the above applications and associated public comments, the Public Works Director issued two determinations on March 12, 2018, approving the installations (Attachments E and F). The determinations were provided to the applicant, posted on the City’s website at smgov.net/engineering, and sent to public commenters who requested to be informed of the City’s determination. City staff received three appeals for the above two applications as detailed in the table below. Proposed Installation Information Appellant Information Application Proposed Installation Location Name Address 17WIR-0083 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue) Manish Butte 903 18th Street 17WIR-0131 2255-2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation) Gracie Gomez 2224 23rd Street Robert Parhami 2255 23rd Street 5 of 13 Appeal by Manish Butte Manish Butte, an 18th Street resident, filed an appeal against wireless application 17WIR-0083 for a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight located in front of 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue). Analysis of Mr. Butte’s Appeal A summary of Mr. Butte’s reasons for appeal and a response are provided below. The full text of the appeal is provided as Attachment G. Reason 1: Property values will be affected due to health effects and aesthetic concerns. Response: Mr. Butte’s claim of negative effects on property values is premised on linking a decline in property values to health-related concerns caused by the proximity of the small cell cite. Pursuant to Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)), the City may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” SMMC Section 7.70.090 provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Mobilitie prepared an electromagnetic energy report detailing the proposed wireless facility’s compliance with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (Attachment H). The proposed site was found to be in compliance with FCC limits. Therefore, anticipated property value decline based on perceived health effects cannot be considered by the City, as these sites comply with FCC regulations. With respect to property value decline based on aesthetic concerns, Mr. Butte states that, “This small cell site proposed is distinctly noticeable as a cell antenna and thus irreparably harms the quaint, residential character of this area.” 6 of 13 The small cell site proposed at this location consists of an antenna and supporting equipment located at the top of the pole. No above ground meter boxes, pedestals, or cabinetry would be installed as part of this installation. The equipment has been proposed to be painted gray to match the existing pole, and the antenna is proposed to be screened with a tubular shroud. Staff worked with Mobilitie to develop the aforementioned camouflage measures and have found them in compliance with the City’s requirements. A photo simulation of the proposed installation is provided as Attachment I. Further, among the limitations set forth under federal law, the City, “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). Precluding installations in residential areas on the basis that they will “irreparably [harm] the quaint, residential character” of a neighborhood would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in residential areas. Therefore, it is not reasonable to deny an application based on the proposed location being in a particular land use zone. Reason 2: Mobilitie will be able to expand the installation in the future without City approvals. Response: Mobilitie is required to submit an application to the City for any modifications to the proposed small cell site. Work may not begin until approval has been obtained from the City. Reason 3: The area derives no benefit from the installation. Response: Mobilitie identified this installation location based on their specific coverage needs. Mobilitie prepared a report providing justification for the need of this wireless site (Attachment J). City staff reviewed the report and have found that reasonable justification exists for the installation of the proposed small cell site. Appeal by Gracie Gomez 7 of 13 Gracie Gomez, a 23rd Street resident, filed an appeal against wireless application 17WIR-0131 for a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight located in front of 2255- 2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation). Analysis of Ms. Gomez’s Appeal A summary of Ms. Gomez’s reasons for appeal and a response are provided below. The full text of the appeal is provided as Attachment K. Reason 1: Ms. Gomez cites health-related concerns. Response: Given that the proposed site is compliant with FCC regulations, the City is prohibited from, “[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). SMMC Section 7.70.090 provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Reason 2: Ms. Gomez states that, “there are various other non-residential areas where [the proposed wireless facility] can be placed. Please reconsider the area. Pico Blvd is non-residential and does not have people there more than ten hours.” Response: Among the limitations set forth under federal law, the City, “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). Precluding installations in residential areas would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in residential areas. Reason 3: Property values will be affected due to health effects and aesthetic concerns. Pursuant to Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)), the City may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such 8 of 13 facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” SMMC Section 7.70.090 provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Therefore, anticipated property value decline based on perceived health effects cannot be considered by the City, as these sites comply with FCC regulations. With respect to property value decline based on aesthetic concerns, the small cell site proposed at this location consists of an antenna and supporting equipment located at the top of the pole. No above ground meter boxes, pedestals, or cabinetry will be installed as part of this installation. The equipment has been proposed to be painted gray to match the existing pole, and the antenna is proposed to be screened with a tubular shroud. Staff worked with Mobilitie to develop the aforementioned camouflage measures and have found them in compliance with the City’s requirements. A photo simulation of the proposed installation is provided as Attachment L. Appeal by Robert Parhami Robert Parhami, a 23rd Street resident, filed an appeal against wireless application 17WIR-0131 for a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight located in front of 2255- 2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation). Analysis of Mr. Parhami’s Appeal A summary of Mr. Parhami’s reasons for appeal and a response are provided below. The full text of the appeal is provided as Attachment M. Reason 1: The City did not address all issues submitted by Mr. Parhami in a public comment objecting to the application. Response: Staff considered all comments submitted within 14 days of receiving a public notice in the course of the City’s review of an application. Mr. Parhami submitted a public comment on February 16, 2018, which fell within the 14-day comment window and was therefore considered (Attachment N). 9 of 13 Reason 2: The use of the public right-of-way will be affected due to radio frequency emissions from the proposed installation. Response: Pursuant to Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)), the City may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” SMMC Section 7.70.090 provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Mobilitie prepared an electromagnetic energy report detailing the proposed wireless facility’s compliance with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (Attachment O). The proposed site was found to be in compliance with FCC limits, and therefore will not affect the use of the public right-of- way. Reason 3: Work commenced on the wireless site before a public notice was sent. Mr. Parhami recorded this work in a video that was posted to YouTube on January 29, 2018. Response: City staff located and viewed the video posted by Mr. Parhami. The Public Works Department issued an excavation permit—not a wireless site permit—on January 17, 2018 authorizing the work shown in Mr. Parhami’s video. The contractor performed all work as permitted. Reason 4: Mr. Parhami states that, “The [City’s determination approving the wireless application] did not address concerns regarding a lack of opportunity for public participation and input. The city directed people to the FCC instead.” Response: As stated in the City’s determination approving the wireless application, “the intention of the public noticing process is to invite public participation and input regarding the proposed installation. All public comments received were considered in the course of the City’s review of the application.” 10 of 13 Reason 5: Mr. Parhami cites health-related concerns. Response: Given that the proposed site is compliant with FCC regulations, the City is prohibited from, “[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). SMMC Section 7.70.090 further provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Reason 6: Mr. Parhami states that, “The city did not address the resultant loss in property value due to a large segment of the public including the [manufacturers] of the antenna, rightfully or wrongfully, believe being too close to the antennas for prolonged periods is unsafe.” Response: Given that this reason is rooted in the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, and that the site is compliant with FCC regulations, the City is prohibited from, “[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). SMMC Section 7.70.090 further provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Reason 7: The energy level of the antenna can be manually adjusted to a higher setting, and the City has not considered this. Response: The City has conferred with Mobilitie and has confirmed that the wattage of effective radiated power (W ERP) reported in the application to the City is the maximum W ERP. Reason 8: Mr. Parhami believes that the proposed wireless facility “will affect and interfere with [the] products sold by my [home-based] business.” 11 of 13 Response: Mr. Parhami’s concern is regarding the environmental effects of the proposed installation’s radio frequency emissions on his home-based business. Given that the proposed site is compliant with FCC regulations, the City is prohibited from, “[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” (Title 47 U.S. Code section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). SMMC Section 7.70.090 further provides that “appeals to the Director’s decision premised on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions will not be considered.” Reason 9: The City used an arbitrary standard to determine the lease rate for use of its infrastructure (streetlight and traffic signal poles) and did not account for other factors when determining this lease rate. Response: This appeal has been filed against a wireless facility application. Lease rates for use of City infrastructure are not determined within the wireless facility application process and should therefore not be considered as part of this appeal. The lease rate was established in the MLA between the City and Mobilitie. Reason 10: The public has not been presented with justification as to why this installation is necessary and what alternatives were considered. The City did not fully exercise its zoning authority provided under federal law. Response: As stated in the public notice mailed to Mr. Parhami, the proposed installation location “was identified based on the applicant’s specific coverage needs.” Mobilitie prepared a report providing justification for the need of this wireless site (Attachment P). City staff reviewed the report and have found that reasonable justification exists for the installation of the proposed small cell site. Further, City staff have exercised their authority under Title 47 U.S. Code section 332 to the extent necessary to ensure that the proposed small cell site complies with the City’s local laws and regulations concerning small cell wireless facilities. 12 of 13 Alternative Actions As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may choose to grant the appeals and deny the installation of the two small cell sites. The failure to take any action (whether to approve or deny) could result in the applications being deemed approved under Federal and State law. Statement of Official Action Statements of Official Action are provided as Attachments Q and R should council deny the appeals against wireless applications 17WIR-0083 and 17WIR-0131, respectively. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Each site permit has a term of 10 years. The total 10-year lease revenue for each site is approximately $26,848. If Council should uphold the appeal, the City would not receive these annual license fees. Staff would adjust revenue budgets accordingly at the FY 2018-19 mid-year budget. Revenues will be deposited into account number 01500009.403170. Prepared By: Thomas Check, Civil Engineer Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. July 26, 2016 Ordinance Adopting SMMC 7.70 B. Master Small Cell License Agreement between the City and Mobilitie C. Application for 17WIR-0083 D. Application for 17WIR-0131 E. March 12, 2018 City Determination - 17WIR-0083 F. March 12, 2018 City Determination - 17WIR-0131 G. Appeal by Manish Butte against 17WIR-0083 13 of 13 H. Electromagnetic Energy Report - 17WIR-0083 I. Photosimulation of Proposed Installation 17WIR-0083 J. Site-Specific Justification - 17WIR-0083 K. Appeal by Gracie Gomez against 17WIR-0131 L. Photosimulation of Proposed Installation 17WIR-0131 M. Appeal by Robert Parhami against 17WIR-0131 N. Comment by Robert Parhami against 17WIR-0131 O. Electromagnetic Energy Report - 17WIR-0131 P. Site-Specific Justification - 17WIR-0131 Q. Statement of Official Action - 17WIR-0083 - 902 18th St R. Statement of Official Action - 17WIR-0131 - 2261 23rd St Department of Public Works Phone: (310) 458-8721 Email: PWpermits@smgov.net WWIIRREELLEESSSS AANNDD WWIIFFII DDEEVVIICCEE PPEERRMMIITT AAPPPPLLIICCAATTIIOONN All sections must be completed. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. (1)Applicant Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ (2) Description of work Job Site Address: _______________________________________________________ Work Description: _______________________________________________________ Check one 1HZLQVWDOODWLRQ 0RGLILFDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJLQVWDOODWLRQ (3)Carrier on Eehalf of Zhom Dpplication is filed Check box if same as (1) and skip to (4) Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ For City Use: Permit Number: _______________ Date: _____________________ Install new equipment to an existing streetlight pole. 3/16/17 LA90XSB12E (4) Contractor Serforming Zork* Check box if same as (1) and skip to (5) Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ Santa Monica Business Lic. No.: ___________________________________________ Contractor’s State Lic. No.: ____________________ Classification: ______________ * The information in section 4 must be provided prior to permit issuance. Contractors performing work in Santa Monica must be licensed by the 6tate and the &ity, have insurance incompliance witKSanta Monica accepted minimum coverage and prHVHQWVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQat the time the permit is issued. (5) The following documents must be included or this application will not be accepted: Digital documents are acceptable and preferred One set of construction plans, load calculations, etc. (include site plan). On the site plan, show the location and depth of all utilities in the adjacent, public rights of way. Photo or computer simulations representing the above ground facility before and after installation (include any pedestals or vents in the simulations). Proposed work schedule (how many days will the project take once started/phases) Certified documentation by a licensed engineer, or FCC documents, confirming that emissions from proposed devices are in compliance with Federal standards for NEIR and EMF fields. Documentation of legal authority to occupy the public right of way (WIR, U number or CPCN) Draft lease/license agreement for use of public land/facilities or agreement for use of third party property. Technical analysis of feasible alternate locations within a 300’ radius of requested location. Required at time of permit issuance: Radius Map and certified list of the names of property owners and addresses within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the proposed installation and a draft notification letter (major permits only). Traffic Control Plan (Check here to see if plans are required) Non-Engineered Traffic Control Plan or Engineered Traffic Control Plan - If previously submitted: TTCP#________ REV#___ By issuance of this permit and the exercise by permittee of the rights granted by the permit, permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Santa Monica, its City Council, Boards or Commissions, officers, agents, or employees, from any claim, liability or damage arising out of or resulting from the permittee’s exercise of the rights granted by the permit. Signed: ___________________________ Print Name: _______________________________ By checking the box the applicant agrees to abide by all requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and conditions set forth on the permit. Failure to comply may result in permit revocation and/or civil penalties. When applying online a check in this box will be equivalent to a signed application. Department of Public Works Phone: (310) 458-8721 Email: PWpermits@smgov.net WWIIRREELLEESSSS AANNDD WWIIFFII DDEEVVIICCEE PPEERRMMIITT AAPPPPLLIICCAATTIIOONN All sections must be completed. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. (1)Applicant Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ (2) Description of work Job Site Address: _______________________________________________________ Work Description: _______________________________________________________ Check one 1HZLQVWDOODWLRQ 0RGLILFDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJLQVWDOODWLRQ (3)Carrier on Eehalf of Zhom Dpplication is filed Check box if same as (1) and skip to (4) Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ For City Use: Permit Number: _______________ Date: _____________________ Install new equipment to an existing streetlight pole. 7/25/17 LA90XSCS4B (4) Contractor Serforming Zork* Check box if same as (1) and skip to (5) Company: _________________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________ E-mail:________________________________ Santa Monica Business Lic. No.: ___________________________________________ Contractor’s State Lic. No.: ____________________ Classification: ______________ * The information in section 4 must be provided prior to permit issuance. Contractors performing work in Santa Monica must be licensed by the 6tate and the &ity, have insurance incompliance witKSanta Monica accepted minimum coverage and prHVHQWVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQat the time the permit is issued. (5) The following documents must be included or this application will not be accepted: Digital documents are acceptable and preferred One set of construction plans, load calculations, etc. (include site plan). On the site plan, show the location and depth of all utilities in the adjacent, public rights of way. Photo or computer simulations representing the above ground facility before and after installation (include any pedestals or vents in the simulations). Proposed work schedule (how many days will the project take once started/phases) Certified documentation by a licensed engineer, or FCC documents, confirming that emissions from proposed devices are in compliance with Federal standards for NEIR and EMF fields. Documentation of legal authority to occupy the public right of way (WIR, U number or CPCN) Draft lease/license agreement for use of public land/facilities or agreement for use of third party property. Technical analysis of feasible alternate locations within a 300’ radius of requested location. Required at time of permit issuance: Radius Map and certified list of the names of property owners and addresses within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the proposed installation and a draft notification letter (major permits only). Traffic Control Plan (Check here to see if plans are required) Non-Engineered Traffic Control Plan or Engineered Traffic Control Plan - If previously submitted: TTCP#________ REV#___ By issuance of this permit and the exercise by permittee of the rights granted by the permit, permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Santa Monica, its City Council, Boards or Commissions, officers, agents, or employees, from any claim, liability or damage arising out of or resulting from the permittee’s exercise of the rights granted by the permit. Signed: ___________________________ Print Name: _______________________________ By checking the box the applicant agrees to abide by all requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and conditions set forth on the permit. Failure to comply may result in permit revocation and/or civil penalties. When applying online a check in this box will be equivalent to a signed application. 1 APPEAL TO THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 17WIR-0083 Appellant Information Name: Manish Butte Address: 903 18th St Santa Monica, CA 90403 Email: manishbutte@gmail.com Phone: (424) 229-5708 Full Text of Appeal We protest this permit 17WIR-0083 and request that the City of Santa Monica deny it. We recommend its relocation to where it will have the least negative impact on area character and property values. At this location it will have a significant negative impact. We purchased our home at 903 18th St., directly across the street from this proposed cell site, in February 2017. The loss in property value that we risk from having a cell tower outside our front door will cause significant hardship to our family. Estimates range from 4-20% of property value lost due to buyers who will not consider purchasing a home near a cell antenna. Realtors report that significant numbers of buyers will not consider a property with a cell antenna adjacent. Buyer sentiments appear to be very strong—in one survey of 1,000 people, 79% responded that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas. This residential area at 18th and Idaho is ideal for “healthy lifestyle” buyers— walkable, bikeable, minimal auto traffic on both 18th and Idaho, public transportation accessible—so we believe our property would especially be affected by buyer concerns that complicate property sales near cell sites. This small cell site proposed is distinctly noticeable as a cell antenna and thus irreparably harms the quaint, residential character of this area. Furthermore, we are concerned that Sprint can choose to expand the site and its footprint it in the future without further approvals, which will be even more damaging. We use non-cellular phone service at home, and we and other residents don't need to use mobile phones at home, so this site does not benefit this area. Furthermore, it only has the potential to help the small fraction of mobile users who use Sprint, the smallest of the wireless carriers in the US, since it is a proprietary antenna. We thus reject that the residents of this neighborhood or of Santa Monica will derive net benefit from the cell site. We believe that if the City of Santa Monica derives some benefit from improving Sprint’s network, the city can offer its own public library less than one diagonal block away as a more suitable site that also is a public resource. The simple solution is to reject this permit and move the proposed site to a very nearby public or commercial area, where visitors and commuters using mobile phones may benefit and no residential property values or area character in Santa Monica will be adversely affected. We would be happy to discuss this further with City Council or other decision-makers. Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 LA90XSB12E 18th St & Idaho Ave Santa Monica, California 90403 Los Angeles County 34.033822; -118.489798 NAD83 Light Pole EBI Project No. 6218005404 August 3, 2018 Prepared for: Mobilitie 2955 Red Hill Ave, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Prepared by: RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by Mobilitie to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for Mobilitie Site 9CAB001099 located at 18th St & Idaho Ave in Santa Monica, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Appendix A of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF- EME fields. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF EME analysis for the site. This document addresses the compliance of proposed transmitting facilities independently at the site. Modeling results included in this report are based on drawings dated July 8, 2017 as provided to EBI Consulting. Subsequent changes to the drawings or site design may yield changes in the MPE levels or FCC Compliance recommendations. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Summary Location % of FCC General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Limit % of FCC Occupational/Controlled Exposure Limit Power Density (mW/cm2) Occupational Approach Distance (ft) Proposed Equipment Antenna Face Level 114.20 22.84 1.1420 <1’ 0” Ground 1.80 0.36 0.0180 <1’ 0” These results are calculated based on max power assumptions for this site. The mounted antenna will contribute the majority to these emissions. Additional equipment to be installed is operating at very low power and contributions to the overall site emission is marginal. Workers accessing any equipment on this pole should follow all safety procedures outlined by the carrier and pole owners. Statement of Compliance Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Signage recommendations are presented in Section 9.0 to bring the site into compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 1.0 LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES AND EXISTING RF LEVELS Mobilitie proposes the installation of one (1) wireless telecommunication antenna on a light pole in Santa Monica, California. The proposed site will have a total of one (1) antenna at the site. There are no collocated carriers on the light pole. 2.0 LOCATION OR ALL APPROVED (BUT NOT INSTALLED) ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES AND EXPECTED RF LEVELS FROM THE APPROVED FACILITIES There are no antennas or facilities that are approved and not installed based on information provided to EBI and Mobilitie at the time of this report. 3.0 NUMBER AND TYPES OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SITES (WTS) WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SITE Based on aerial photography review, there are no other Wireless Telecommunication Service (WTS) sites observed within 100 feet of the proposed site. 4.0 LOCATION AND NUMBER OF THE ANTENNAS AND BACK-UP FACILITIES PER STRUCTURE AND NUMBER AND LOCATION OF OTHER TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTY Mobilitie proposes the installation of one (1) wireless telecommunication antenna on a light pole in Santa Monica, California. The proposed site will have a total of one (1) antenna at the site. There is one sector proposed at this site with one antenna in that sector. The antenna is transmitting omnidirectionally in the 2500 Mhz Frequency range. The bottom of the antenna will be 23.6 feet above the ground level. There are no collocated carriers on the light pole. 5.0 POWER RATING FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED BACKUP EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION The operating power of each frequency, for modeling purposes, was assumed to be the following: Mobilitie Operating Powers Per Sector Frequency (MHz) Power (Watts) # of Transmitters 2500 20 2 Additional transmitter information used in the modeling of Mobilitie antenna(s) is summarized in the RoofView® export file presented in Appendix C. 6.0 TOTAL NUMBER OF WATTS PER INSTALLATION AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WATTS FOR ALL INSTALLATIONS ON THE STRUCTURE The Effective Radiated Power (ERP) for each carrier and frequency is summarized below: Effective Radiated Power (ERP) per Frequency Frequency (MHz) ERP (Watts) 2500 173 RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 7.0 PREFERRED METHOD OF ATTACHMENT OF PROPOSED ANTENNA INCLUDING DIRECTIONALITY OF ANTENNAS AND HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS ABOVE NEAREST WALKING SURFACE Based on the information provided to EBI, the proposed antenna(s) will be mounted to an existing light pole and operating in the directions, frequencies, and heights mentioned in section 4.0 above. 8.0 ESTIMATED AMBIENT RADIO FREQUENCY FIELDS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Summary Location % of FCC General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Limit % of FCC Occupational/Controlled Exposure Limit Power Density (mW/cm2) Occupational Approach Distance (ft) Proposed Equipment Antenna Face Level 114.20 22.84 1.1420 <1’ 0” Ground 1.80 0.36 0.0180 <1’ 0” It is recommended that the general public maintain a 3ft setback from the antenna. The inputs used in the modeling are summarized in the RoofView® export file presented in Appendix C. 9.0 SIGNAGE AT THE FACILITY IDENTIFYING ALL WTS EQUIPMENT AND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR PEOPLE NEARING THE EQUIPMENT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FCC ADOPTED STANDARDS Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. However, it is not recommended that signage be placed in highly public areas where there are no exposures above the FCC general public limits. Signage at this site should be installed following carrier and local jurisdiction requirements. Additionally, any elevated workers should be alerted to any potential exposures at the antenna face. There are no exposures above the FCC limits at ground level and therefore barriers are not recommended. Workers that are elevated above the ground may be exposed to power densities greater than the applicable FCC limits. Workers should be informed via signage about the presence of antennas and their associated fields and practice RF Safety Procedures. Access to this site is accomplished by walking up to the light pole. Access to the antennas is gained via a lift or climbing with fall protection and therefore the antenna is considered not accessible to the general public. 10.0 STATEMENT ON PRODUCTION OF THIS REPORT AND QUALIFICATIONS Please see the certifications attached in Appendix B below. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 11.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of Mobilitie. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 12.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed Mobilitie telecommunications equipment at the site located at 18th St & Idaho Ave in Santa Monica, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from proposed the Mobilitie antenna(s) to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 9.0. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Appendix A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz and 2500 MHz frequency ranges. For the Mobilitie equipment operating at 800 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.66 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.53 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Freq, Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2 ) RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Personal Communication System (PCS) facilities used by Mobilitie in this area operate within a frequency range of 800-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) facilities used by the carrier in this area operate within a frequency range of 2496 - 2690 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets); and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units. Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS/AWS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. FCC Compliance Requirement A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Appendix B Certifications RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB001099 EBI Project No. 6218005404 18th St & Idaho Ave, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Preparer Certification I, Erik Johnson, state that: I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. I am familiar with the FCC rules and regulations as well as OSHA regulations both in general and as they apply to RF-EME exposure. I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Appendix C Roofview® Export File / Antenna Inventory Ma p , Se t t i n g s , An t e n n a , an d Sy m b o l Da t a Ta b l e .. Ex p o r t e d fr o m wo r k b o o k ‐ > Ro o f V i e w 4. 1 5 . x l s Do n e on 8/ 2 / 2 0 1 8 at 9: 5 4 : 0 9 AM . Us e th i s fo r m a t to pr e p a r e ot h e r da t a se t s fo r th e Ro o f V i e w wo r k b o o k fi l e . Yo u ma y us e as ma n y ro w s in th i s TO P he a d e r as yo u wi s h . Th e cr i t i c a l po i n t ar e th e ce l l s in CO L U M N ON E th a t re a d 'S t a r t . . . ' (e g . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n ) If us e d , th e s e (4 ) he a d e r s ar e re q u i r e d to be sp e l l e d ex a c t l y , as on e wo r d (e g . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n ) Th e ve r y ne x t ro w wi l l be co n s i d e r e d th e st a r t of th a t da t a bl o c k . Th e fi r s t ro w of th e da t a bl o c k ca n be a he a d e r (a s sh o w n be l o w ) , bu t th i s is op t i o n a l . Wh e n bu i l d i n g a te x t fi l e fo r im p o r t , Ad d th e Ma p in f o fi r s t , th e n th e An t e n n a da t a , fo l l o w e d by th e sy m b o l da t a . Al l ro w s ab o v e th e fi r s t ma r k e r li n e 'S t a r t . . . ' wi l l be ig n o r e d , no ma t t e r ho w ma n y th e r e ar e . Th i s ar e a is fo r yo u us e fo r do c u m e n t a t i o n . En d of he l p co m m e n t s . Yo u ca n pl a c e as mu c h te x t he r e as yo u wi s h as lo n g as yo u do n ' t pl a c e it be l o w th e St a r t Ma p De f i n i t i o n ro w be l o w th e bl u e li n e . Yo u ma y in s e r t mo r e ro w s us i n g th e In s e r t me n u . Sh o u l d yo u ne e d ad d i t i o n a l li n e s to do c u m e n t yo u r pr o j e c t , si m p l y in s e r t ad d i t i o n a l ro w s by hi g h l i g h t i n g th e ro w nu m b e r ad j a c e n t to th e bl u e li n e be l o w an d th e n cl i c k i n g on th e In s e r t me n u an d se l e c t i n g ro w s . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n Ro o f Ma x Y Ro o f Ma x X Ma p Ma x Y Ma p Ma x X Y Of f s e t X Of f s e t N u m b e r o f en v e l o p e 17 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 $ U $ 4 1 : $ F X $U $ 4 1 : $ F X $ 2 1 0 St a r t S e t t i n g s D a t a St a n d a r d M e t h o d U p t i m e S c a l e Fa c t o Lo w Th r L o w Co l o r M i d Th r M i d Co l o r H i Th r H i Co l o r O v e r Co l o r A p Ht Mu l t Ap Ht Me t h o d 42 3 1 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 4 50 0 0 2 3 1 . 5 1 St a r t A n t e n n a D a t a I t is ad v i s a b l e to pr o v i d e an ID (a n t 1) fo r al l an t e n n a s (M H z ) T r a n s T r a n s C o a x C o a x O t h e r I n p u t C a l c ( f t ) ( f t ) ( f t ) ( f t ) d B d B W d t h U p t i m e O N ID Na m e Fr e q P o w e r C o u n t L e n T y p e L o s s Po w e r P o w e r Mf g Mo d e l X Y Z Ty p e Ap e r Gain Pt Dir Profile flag MO B 1 M o b i l i t i e 2 5 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 4 0 Al p h a A W 3 4 7 7 3 0 3 0 2 3 . 6 3 3 2 . 4 6 . 3 5 O M N I O N • St a r t S y m b o l D a t a Sy m M a p Ma r k e Ro o f X R o o f Y M a p La b e l D e s c r i p t i o n ( no t e s fo r th i s ta b l e on l y ) Sy m 5 3 5 A C Un i t S a m p l e sy m b o l s Sy m 1 4 5 R o o f Ac c e s s Sy m 4 5 5 A C Un i t Sy m 4 5 2 0 L a d d e r P H O T O S I M U L A T I O N F O R N E W S M A L L C E L L S I T E L O C A T E D A T : VICINITY MAP © 2 0 1 6 G o o g l e P R E V I E W M O B I L I T I E , L L C 18TH ST & I D A H O A V E | S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 S I T E I D : 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 S I T E D E S C R I P T I O N : N E W S M A L L C E L L S I T E W I T H I N E X I S T I N G R I G H T O F W A Y V I E W S : 4 S H E E T I N D E X S H E E T 2 : V I E W 1 S H E E T 3 : V I E W 2 S H E E T 4 : V I E W 3 S H E E T 5 : V I E W 4 4 2 1 = V I E W N O . Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangentsystems.co Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 1 8 T H S T & I D A H O A V E S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 1 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 12.08.16 1 3 EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 1 - L O O K I N G N O R T H W E S T F R O M 1 8 T H S T . Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangentsystems.co Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 1 8 T H S T & I D A H O A V E S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 2 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 12.08.16 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 2 - L O O K I N G W E S T F R O M I D A H O A V E . Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangentsystems.co Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 1 8 T H S T & I D A H O A V E S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 3 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 12.08.16 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangentsystems.co Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 1 8 T H S T & I D A H O A V E S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 4 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 12.08.16 EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 3 - L O O K I N G S O U T H F R O M 1 8 T H S T . P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 4 - L O O K I N G E A S T F R O M I D A H O A V E . Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangentsystems.co Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: 9 C A B 0 0 1 0 9 9 1 8 T H S T & I D A H O A V E S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 3 5 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 12.08.16 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E 08/10/18 RF Propagation Study for a Wireless Small Cell Site (LA90XSB12E/9CAB001099_E) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet Existing Coverage (-107 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet Existing Coverage (-107 dBm) Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet -Average -Above Average -Critical Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet -Average -Above Average -Critical Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSB12E Mobiltie ID:9CAB001099_E LAT/LONG:34.033822, -118.489798 Pole Height:23 Feet 1 APPEAL TO THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 17WIR-0131 Appellant Information Name: Gracie Gomez Address: 2224 23rd St Santa Monica, CA 90405 Email: greyseamez@aol.com Phone: (310) 686-1206 Full Text of Appeal I’d like to ask the City Council to halt the the installation of a cell tower that is planned to be set up on the 2200 block of 23rd St. This a residential area where there are many elderly people who are home at least twenty hours each day with compromised immune systems. I myself suffer from skin cancer and my doctors have informed me to stay away from cell towers. There are various other non-residential areas where they can be placed. Please reconsider the area. Pico Blvd is non-residential and does not have people there more than ten hours. I’m also concerned of the property value if placed on this street if a tower is put up, but mainly for health reasons. Thank you again. P H O T O S I M U L A T I O N F O R N E W S M A L L C E L L S I T E L O C A T E D A T : VICINITY MAP © 2 0 1 6 G o o g l e P R E V I E W M O B I L I T I E , L L C 23RD ST & P E A R L S T | S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 S I T E I D : L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B S I T E D E S C R I P T I O N : N E W S M A L L C E L L S I T E W I T H I N E X I S T I N G R I G H T O F W A Y V I E W S : 4 S H E E T I N D E X S H E E T 2 : V I E W 1 S H E E T 3 : V I E W 2 S H E E T 4 : V I E W 3 S H E E T 5 : V I E W 4 41 1 = V I E W N O . Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangent.systems Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B 2 3 R D S T & P E A R L S T S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 1 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 07.19.17 32 EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 1 - L O O K I N G N O R T H F R O M 2 3 R D S T Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangent.systems Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B 2 3 R D S T & P E A R L S T S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 2 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 07.19.17 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 2 - L O O K I N G N O R T H W E S T F R O M 2 3 R D S T Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangent.systems Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B 2 3 R D S T & P E A R L S T S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 3 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 07.19.17 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangent.systems Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B 2 3 R D S T & P E A R L S T S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 4 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 07.19.17 EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 3 - L O O K I N G S O U T H E A S T F R O M 2 3 R D S T P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E EXISTING VIEW P R O P O S E D V I E W V I E W 4 - L O O K I N G N O R T H E A S T F R O M 2 3 R D S T Photo Simulation By: / S i t e I D : P O L E T Y P E : S H E E T : 424-262-4167 | tangent.systems Photo SimulationThis photographic simulation is intende d a s a v i s u a l representation only and is not to be used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n purposes. Accuracy of photo simulation is bas e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n provided by project applicant.DATE: L A 9 0 X S C S 4 B 2 3 R D S T & P E A R L S T S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 5 5 5 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E M O B I L I T I E , L L C 07.19.17 P R O P O S E D E Q U I P M E N T O N E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E L I G H T P O L E 1 APPEAL TO THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 17WIR-0131 Appellant Information Name: Robert Parhami Address: 2255 23rd St Santa Monica, CA 90405 Email: robertparhami@iccn.com Phone: (310) 452-1638 Full Text of Appeal I hereby ask the City Council of Santa Monica to appeal the decision to grant the construction of a cell tower on top of the light pole at the end of my driveway of my home. I ask the the permit be revoked for the following reasons: The city response states, “The City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works, after reviewing the submitted application package and recieved public comments, finds that the proposed wireless facility complies with all applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and Federal Communications Commission rules. The Application is therefore approved.” The city has not addressed all issues submitted to the objection for the permit. The technical documentation of the Antennas state that telephone company employees should not spend too much time near these antennas, the city response states “resulting in no effect on the public’s use of the public right of way (SMMC 7.70.080(b)).” I believe this is wrong. The city response states. “Pursuant to SMMC 7.70.070(t) and 7.70.060, the applicant sent a City-approved notice to all businesses and residents within a 500 ft radius…” This is false, the project was started before a notice was sent. I asked the project to be stopped and posted the video on Youtube. The public notification later sent was not dated, I believe to hide the fact that no public notification was sent prior to the start of the project. The city response did not address Concerns regarding a lack of opportunity for public participation and input. The city directed people to the FCC instead. The city had stated it would not consider health implication issues due to FCC limitations and laws. I believe any law that gives special unequal protection for health issues to cell phone company employees as opposed to residents living nearby the Antenna are not Constitutional. The city states the antenna will be installed using City’s Camouflage requirements (SMMC 7.70.080(c)). The city did not address the resultant loss in property value due to a large segment of the public including the manufactures of the antenna, rightfully or wrongfully, believe being too close to the antennas for prolonged periods is unsafe. This city action results in devaluation of nearby properties, and at the same time, the city is profiting and creating a revenue stream from these antennas. The owners of the properties being devalued should be reimbursed from the profits the city makes from these antennas. 2 The city states, “Pursuant to Title 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(1). Installations of wireless facilities that emit greater than 1,000 watts of Effective Radiated Power (W ERP) and are mounted on structures less than 10 meters (32.81 ft) are required to prepare an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposed installation emits 172.61 W ERP and is therefore categorically excluded from preparing an Environmental Assessment.” The city has not taken into account that the energy levels of these antennas can be adjusted upwards manually, and the report requirement should be based on the maximum wattage capabilities of Effective Radiated Power of these Antennas, and not the proposed manual setting. I believe this antenna would also be within 32.81 horizontal ft of my bedroom. As an owner of a home based business that sells electronic jamming locator equipment to law enforcement, I believe these antennas will affect and interfere with the the products sold by my business. The city used an arbitrary standard to come up with a fair market value of $2,500 per installation per year for these antennas. The method used did not take into account the property values of where the antennas would be placed versus the property values of comparable other cities and the resultant loss in profits that the city will be paying for in class action suits brought by the nearby home and business owners for loss of property value and other currently intangible future liabilities. The city will be liable given the city is profiting from these projects, and a liability special fund for these projects has not been set up. The public has not been shown a study showing there is an actual need for this project, what alternative technologies are currently available, or alternative locations for the antennas, or factors determining which resident should be saddled with the undesirable costs and ramifications of the project, that the city considered, if any. The city seems to not have considered all of the limitations set forth in Title 47 US Code section 332, and the limitations presented by the United States Constitution. The city council members should be knowledgeable about Constitutional issues, they may be held personally, civilly, and financially responsible if actual health issue and other concerns are not considered and they willingly turn a blind eye to the concerns of the citizenry of the city they serve and have been notified of. Pursuant to SMMC 7.70.090, I appeal the Public Works Department’s decision to the City Council, on this day March 23, 2018, having received the incomplete response from the city on March 12, within 14 calendar days as required. I intend to pursue a class action suit against all responsible for disrupting my home and the safe enjoyment of my neighborhood. 1 COMMENT AGAINST APPLICATION 17WIR-0131 Commenter Information Name: Robert Parhami Address: 2255 23rd St Santa Monica, CA 90405 Email: robertparhami@iccn.com Phone: (310) 452-1638 Full Text of Comment I ask that this permit be revoked because it has an incorrect address for the location of the pole on the notice. The correct address is the streetlight pole on the parkway belonging to 2261 23rd Street. If an incorrect address was used all of the metrics assigned to the project based on electromagnetic signaling measurements are likely wrong. I believe a public explanation on how the location was chosen and an environmental impact study should be performed on this project. This pole will have a negative impact on the nearby property values. The tower is being placed near a two story private residence which will impact the efficacy of the signals generated by the tower, when there are many light poles with no obstructions in the area. For those believing that, if the technical documentation of these cell towers state that those installing and maintaining these towers should not spend too much time near these towers, it is unreasonable to expect those responsible to maintain the parkways under the poles have less constitutional rights than those installing or maintaining these towers. I believe this permit was granted based on faulty data and assumptions presented to the city. I believe the city partaking in profits on this project is unconstitutional due to the fact that it gives this company an unfair advantage against those creating and delivering competing technologies. I believe a public presentation needs to be done to show how much money will be generated, who will benefit, and where the profits will be sent from this project. This is not a public but a private project. How will the property owners negatively impacted by this project be compensated? Where is the public accounting of this venture being presented? Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 LA90XSCS4B 23rd St & Pearl St Santa Monica, California 90405 Los Angeles County 34.019278; -118.465005 NAD83 Light Pole EBI Project No. 6218005405 August 3, 2018 Prepared for: Mobilitie 2955 Red Hill Ave, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Prepared by: RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by Mobilitie to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for Mobilitie Site 9CAB010443 located at 23rd St & Pearl St in Santa Monica, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Appendix A of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF- EME fields. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF EME analysis for the site. This document addresses the compliance of proposed transmitting facilities independently at the site. Modeling results included in this report are based on drawings dated December 6, 2017 as provided to EBI Consulting. Subsequent changes to the drawings or site design may yield changes in the MPE levels or FCC Compliance recommendations. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Summary Location % of FCC General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Limit % of FCC Occupational/Controlled Exposure Limit Power Density (mW/cm2) Occupational Approach Distance (ft) Proposed Equipment Antenna Face Level 114.20 22.84 1.1420 <1’ 0” Ground 1.40 0.28 0.0140 <1’ 0” These results are calculated based on max power assumptions for this site. The mounted antenna will contribute the majority to these emissions. Additional equipment to be installed is operating at very low power and contributions to the overall site emission is marginal. Workers accessing any equipment on this pole should follow all safety procedures outlined by the carrier and pole owners. Statement of Compliance Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level or adjacent building walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Signage recommendations are presented in Section 9.0 to bring the site into compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 1.0 LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES AND EXISTING RF LEVELS Mobilitie proposes the installation of one (1) wireless telecommunication antenna on a light pole in Santa Monica, California. The proposed site will have a total of one (1) antenna at the site. There are no collocated carriers on the light pole. 2.0 LOCATION OR ALL APPROVED (BUT NOT INSTALLED) ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES AND EXPECTED RF LEVELS FROM THE APPROVED FACILITIES There are no antennas or facilities that are approved and not installed based on information provided to EBI and Mobilitie at the time of this report. 3.0 NUMBER AND TYPES OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SITES (WTS) WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SITE Based on aerial photography review, there are no other Wireless Telecommunication Service (WTS) sites observed within 100 feet of the proposed site. 4.0 LOCATION AND NUMBER OF THE ANTENNAS AND BACK-UP FACILITIES PER STRUCTURE AND NUMBER AND LOCATION OF OTHER TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTY Mobilitie proposes the installation of one (1) wireless telecommunication antenna on a light pole in Santa Monica, California. The proposed site will have a total of one (1) antenna at the site. There is one sector proposed at this site with one antenna in that sector. The antenna is transmitting omnidirectionally in the 2500 Mhz Frequency range. The bottom of the antenna will be 26.9 feet above the ground level. There are no collocated carriers on the light pole. 5.0 POWER RATING FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED BACKUP EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION The operating power of each frequency, for modeling purposes, was assumed to be the following: Mobilitie Operating Powers Per Sector Frequency (MHz) Power (Watts) # of Transmitters 2500 20 2 Additional transmitter information used in the modeling of the Mobilitie antenna is summarized in the RoofView® export file presented in Appendix C. 6.0 TOTAL NUMBER OF WATTS PER INSTALLATION AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WATTS FOR ALL INSTALLATIONS ON THE STRUCTURE The Effective Radiated Power (ERP) for each carrier and frequency is summarized below: Effective Radiated Power (ERP) per Frequency Frequency (MHz) ERP (Watts) 2500 173 RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 7.0 PREFERRED METHOD OF ATTACHMENT OF PROPOSED ANTENNA INCLUDING DIRECTIONALITY OF ANTENNAS AND HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS ABOVE NEAREST WALKING SURFACE Based on the information provided to EBI, the proposed antenna(s) will be mounted to an existing light pole and operating in the directions, frequencies, and heights mentioned in section 4.0 above. 8.0 ESTIMATED AMBIENT RADIO FREQUENCY FIELDS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level or adjacent building walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Summary Location % of FCC General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Limit % of FCC Occupational/Controlled Exposure Limit Power Density (mW/cm2) Occupational Approach Distance (ft) Proposed Equipment Antenna Face Level 114.20 22.84 1.1420 <1’ 0” Ground 1.40 0.28 0.0140 <1’ 0” It is recommended that the general public maintain a 3ft setback from the antenna. The inputs used in the modeling are summarized in the RoofView® export file presented in Appendix C. 9.0 SIGNAGE AT THE FACILITY IDENTIFYING ALL WTS EQUIPMENT AND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR PEOPLE NEARING THE EQUIPMENT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FCC ADOPTED STANDARDS Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. However, it is not recommended that signage be placed in highly public areas where there are no exposures above the FCC general public limits. Signage at this site should be installed following carrier and local jurisdiction requirements. Additionally, any elevated workers should be alerted to any potential exposures at the antenna face. There are no exposures above the FCC limits at ground level and therefore barriers are not recommended. Workers that are elevated above the ground may be exposed to power densities greater than the applicable FCC limits. Workers should be informed via signage about the presence of antennas and their associated fields and practice RF Safety Procedures. Access to this site is accomplished by walking up to the light pole. Access to the antenna is gained via a lift or climbing with fall protection and therefore the antenna is considered not accessible to the general public. 10.0 STATEMENT ON PRODUCTION OF THIS REPORT AND QUALIFICATIONS Please see the certifications attached in Appendix B below. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 11.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of Mobilitie. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 12.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed Mobilitie telecommunications equipment at the site located at 23rd St & Pearl St in Santa Monica, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from proposed the Mobilitie antenna(s) to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground- level or adjacent building walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 9.0. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Appendix A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz and 2500 MHz frequency ranges. For the Mobilitie equipment operating at 800 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.66 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.53 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time [E]2, [H]2, or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = Frequency in (MHz) * Plane-wave equivalent power density Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Frequency Occupational MPE Public MPE Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Freq, Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 Po w e r D e n s i t y ( m W / c m 2 ) RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Personal Communication System (PCS) facilities used by Mobilitie in this area operate within a frequency range of 800-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) facilities used by the carrier in this area operate within a frequency range of 2496 - 2690 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets); and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units. Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS/AWS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. FCC Compliance Requirement A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Appendix B Certifications RF-EME Compliance Report Site No. 9CAB010443 EBI Project No. 6218005405 23rd St & Pearl St, Santa Monica, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Preparer Certification I, Erik Johnson, state that: I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. I am familiar with the FCC rules and regulations as well as OSHA regulations both in general and as they apply to RF-EME exposure. I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Appendix C Roofview® Export File / Antenna Inventory Ma p , Se t t i n g s , An t e n n a , an d Sy m b o l Da t a Ta b l e .. Ex p o r t e d fr o m wo r k b o o k ‐ > Ro o f V i e w 4. 1 5 . x l s Do n e on 8/ 2 / 2 0 1 8 at 10 : 0 8 : 2 8 AM . Us e th i s fo r m a t to pr e p a r e ot h e r da t a se t s fo r th e Ro o f V i e w wo r k b o o k fi l e . Yo u ma y us e as ma n y ro w s in th i s TO P he a d e r as yo u wi s h . Th e cr i t i c a l po i n t ar e th e ce l l s in CO L U M N ON E th a t re a d 'S t a r t . . . ' (e g . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n ) If us e d , th e s e (4 ) he a d e r s ar e re q u i r e d to be sp e l l e d ex a c t l y , as on e wo r d (e g . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n ) Th e ve r y ne x t ro w wi l l be co n s i d e r e d th e st a r t of th a t da t a bl o c k . Th e fi r s t ro w of th e da t a bl o c k ca n be a he a d e r (a s sh o w n be l o w ) , bu t th i s is op t i o n a l . Wh e n bu i l d i n g a te x t fi l e fo r im p o r t , Ad d th e Ma p in f o fi r s t , th e n th e An t e n n a da t a , fo l l o w e d by th e sy m b o l da t a . Al l ro w s ab o v e th e fi r s t ma r k e r li n e 'S t a r t . . . ' wi l l be ig n o r e d , no ma t t e r ho w ma n y th e r e ar e . Th i s ar e a is fo r yo u us e fo r do c u m e n t a t i o n . En d of he l p co m m e n t s . Yo u ca n pl a c e as mu c h te x t he r e as yo u wi s h as lo n g as yo u do n ' t pl a c e it be l o w th e St a r t Ma p De f i n i t i o n ro w be l o w th e bl u e li n e . Yo u ma y in s e r t mo r e ro w s us i n g th e In s e r t me n u . Sh o u l d yo u ne e d ad d i t i o n a l li n e s to do c u m e n t yo u r pr o j e c t , si m p l y in s e r t ad d i t i o n a l ro w s by hi g h l i g h t i n g th e ro w nu m b e r ad j a c e n t to th e bl u e li n e be l o w an d th e n cl i c k i n g on th e In s e r t me n u an d se l e c t i n g ro w s . St a r t M a p D e f i n i t i o n Ro o f Ma x Y Ro o f Ma x X Ma p Ma x Y Ma p Ma x X Y Of f s e t X Of f s e t N u m b e r o f en v e l o p e 17 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 $ U $ 4 1 : $ F X $U $ 4 1 : $ F X $ 2 1 0 St a r t S e t t i n g s D a t a St a n d a r d M e t h o d U p t i m e S c a l e Fa c t o Lo w Th r L o w Co l o r M i d Th r M i d Co l o r H i Th r H i Co l o r O v e r Co l o r A p Ht Mu l t Ap Ht Me t h o d 42 3 1 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 4 50 0 0 2 3 1 . 5 1 St a r t A n t e n n a D a t a I t is ad v i s a b l e to pr o v i d e an ID (a n t 1) fo r al l an t e n n a s (M H z ) T r a n s T r a n s C o a x C o a x O t h e r I n p u t C a l c ( f t ) ( f t ) ( f t ) ( f t ) d B d B W d t h U p t i m e O N ID Na m e Fr e q P o w e r C o u n t L e n T y p e L o s s Po w e r P o w e r Mf g Mo d e l X Y Z Ty p e Ap e r Gain Pt Dir Profile flag MO B 1 M o b i l i t i e 2 5 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 Al p h a A W 3 4 7 7 3 0 3 0 2 6 . 8 8 2 . 4 6 . 3 5 O M N I O N • St a r t S y m b o l D a t a Sy m M a p Ma r k e Ro o f X R o o f Y M a p La b e l D e s c r i p t i o n ( no t e s fo r th i s ta b l e on l y ) Sy m 5 3 5 A C Un i t S a m p l e sy m b o l s Sy m 1 4 5 R o o f Ac c e s s Sy m 4 5 5 A C Un i t Sy m 4 5 2 0 L a d d e r 08/10/18 RF Propagation Study for a Wireless Small Cell Site (LA90XSCS4B/9CAB010443_B) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet Existing Coverage (-107 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet Existing Coverage (-107 dBm) Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet -Average -Above Average -Critical Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet -Average -Above Average -Critical Proposed Coverage (-102 dBm) Target Area Proposed Small Cell Santa Monica City, California Candidate ID:LA90XSCS4B Mobiltie ID:9CAB010443_B LAT/LONG:34.019278, -118.465005 Pole Height:26 Feet 1 17WIR-0083 Statement of Official Action City of Santa Monica Public Works Department CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION APPEALED APPLICATION: 18WIR-0083 LOCATION: City-owned streetlight pole in front of 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue) APPELLANT: Manish Butte APPLICANT: Frank Chatzipantsios, Mobilitie PROPERTY OWNER: City of Santa Monica (public right-of-way) CASE ENGINEER: Thomas Check, Civil Engineering Assistant REQUEST: Appeal the Public Works Department’s decision to approve Wireless Facility Permit 17WIR-0083 to install a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight pole in front of 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue) CEQA STATUS: The proposed small cell site is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alteration of existing public structures. 2 17WIR-0083 Statement of Official Action CITY COUNCIL ACTION August 28, 2018 Determination Date Appeal granted based on the following findings. X Appeal denied. Application approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Other: EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: August 28, 2018 LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: 0 The City Council, having held a public hearing on August 28, 2018, hereby denies Mr. Butte’s appeal and approves 18WIR-0083 to install a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight pole in front of 902 18th Street (southwest corner of 18th Street and Idaho Avenue). Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the application. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. FINDINGS SMALL CELL SITE PERMIT FINDINGS A. The proposed small cell site requires the installation of a wireless antenna and accessory equipment at the top of the streetlight pole. The equipment is mounted a minimum of eight feet above the existing grade. All other equipment is proposed to be installed below grade in a pull box. These measures ensure that the proposed small cell site will not interfere with the use of the public right-of- way. B. An electromagnetic energy (EME) report has been submitted for the proposed small cell site. Per the EME report, “[b]ased on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground-level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.” Therefore, the proposed facility is in compliance with all federal radio frequency emissions standards. 3 17WIR-0083 Statement of Official Action C. The proposed small cell site consists of an antenna and supporting equipment located at the top of the pole. No above ground meter boxes, pedestals, or cabinetry would be installed as part of this installation. The equipment has been proposed to be painted gray to match the existing pole, and the antenna is proposed to be screened with a tubular shroud. Therefore, the proposed facility’s impacts have been mitigated through the use of camouflage and concealment elements. D. The proposed small cell site complies with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The proposed small cell site complies with Santa Monica Municipal Code chapter 4.12 regarding noise. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTRATIVE A. Within ten (10) days of Public Works Department transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, Applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the Public Works Department, agreeing to the conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, Applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights Applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement of Official Action shall be returned to the Public Works Department. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for permit revocation. INDEMNITY B. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this Wireless Facility Permit concerning the Applicant's proposed project, or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following occur: a. The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs; and b. The City defends the action in good faith. Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant. 4 17WIR-0083 Statement of Official Action In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions relating to the Applicant's project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder. The failure of the Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals granted hereunder. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS C. This approval is for those plans dated July 6, 2017, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the Public Works Department. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. D. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Public Works Department administrative review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Public Works Department. 1 17WIR-0131 Statement of Official Action City of Santa Monica Public Works Department CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION APPEALED APPLICATION: 18WIR-0131 LOCATION: City-owned streetlight pole in front of 2255-2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation) APPELLANT: Robert Parhami and Gracie Gomez APPLICANT: Frank Chatzipantsios, Mobilitie PROPERTY OWNER: City of Santa Monica (public right-of-way) CASE ENGINEER: Thomas Check, Civil Engineering Assistant REQUEST: Appeal the Public Works Department’s decision to approve Wireless Facility Permit 17WIR-0131 to install a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight pole in front of 2255-2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation) CEQA STATUS: The proposed small cell site is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alteration of existing public structures. 2 17WIR-0131 Statement of Official Action CITY COUNCIL ACTION August 28, 2018 Determination Date Appeal granted based on the following findings. X Appeal denied. Application approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Other: EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: August 28, 2018 LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: 0 The City Council, having held a public hearing on August 28, 2018, hereby denies Mr. Parhami’s and Ms. Gomez’s appeals and approves 18WIR-0131 to install a small cell site on a City-owned streetlight pole in front of 2255-2261 23rd Street (along property line prolongation). Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the application. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. FINDINGS SMALL CELL SITE PERMIT FINDINGS A. The proposed small cell site requires the installation of a wireless antenna and accessory equipment at the top of the streetlight pole. The equipment is mounted a minimum of eight feet above the existing grade. All other equipment is proposed to be installed below grade in a pull box. These measures ensure that the proposed small cell site will not interfere with the use of the public right-of- way. B. An electromagnetic energy (EME) report has been submitted for the proposed small cell site. Per the EME report, “[b]ased on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground-level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.” Therefore, the proposed facility is in compliance with all federal radio frequency emissions standards. 3 17WIR-0131 Statement of Official Action C. The proposed small cell site consists of an antenna and supporting equipment located at the top of the pole. No above ground meter boxes, pedestals, or cabinetry would be installed as part of this installation. The equipment has been proposed to be painted gray to match the existing pole, and the antenna is proposed to be screened with a tubular shroud. Therefore, the proposed facility’s impacts have been mitigated through the use of camouflage and concealment elements. D. The proposed small cell site complies with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The proposed small cell site complies with Santa Monica Municipal Code chapter 4.12 regarding noise. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTRATIVE A. Within ten (10) days of Public Works Department transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, Applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the Public Works Department, agreeing to the conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, Applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights Applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement of Official Action shall be returned to the Public Works Department. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. INDEMNITY B. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this Wireless Facility Permit concerning the Applicant's proposed project, or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following occur: a. The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs; and b. The City defends the action in good faith. Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant. 4 17WIR-0131 Statement of Official Action In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions relating to the Applicant's project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder. The failure of the Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals granted hereunder. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS C. This approval is for those plans dated June 8, 2017, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the Public Works Department. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. D. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Public Works Department administrative review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Public Works Department.